Eric, many thanks for the kind words. I’d still like to encourage the CSC to better detail its reform ideas for Title IX. There’s got to be more than reinstating an interest survey and encouraging schools to add sports like cheerleading.

Beau, if you were in CSC’s shoes, how would you respond, when the athletes for whom you’re advocating don’t have the force of the law as female athletes do and when mainstream media treatment in general — and not just Tuesday’s piece in the NYT — tends to be one-sided and generally not very well-informed?

LFN, thanks for linking to your blog and letting us know you’re out there. Please keep reading!

BB, I’m glad schools like Clemson have decided to get good in the sports that they started primarily because of Title IX. It’s too bad the NYT didn’t expand its examination of “underqualified” female athletes into this context.

Carey, when I was at the AJC, I wrote a story on National Girls and Women in Sports Day that I thought days like this were no longer needed. Initially my (male) editors were taken aback, but they let me write it, slapped an “analysis” label above the headline and I didn’t have to go into hiding. But yes, your experiences delving into this topic from a critical perspective are probably not isolated. My being a woman probably helps me here, I will admit this. The great thing about being out of the MSM is that I don’t have to be shackled when tackling incendiary topics. It truly has been liberating, to borrow a word.

And Brian, I’m not kidding about women’s advocates fervently believing in the interest issue as they do. They truly think that the only thing keeping women from playing sports at the same rates as men is men keeping them down. About this they are as strident as any issue related to Title IX.

I’ve got some other thoughts on this subject and some reaction since last week’s story that I’ll post here on Monday, so stay tuned!

The real tragedy of Title IX is that government is deciding, based upon completely arbitrary and evidence free criteria, that some (I will admit that the number is small) men should be disadvantaged (save me the line that women “don’t want” this-in reality, that is what must happen given the law as it stands) so that a greater number of women can PLAY SPORTS

My question is this (And I worked for a similar, if not higher regarded paper for 12 years): What would your former editors have thought of this retort? Would they have encouraged it? Or burried it in fear of not being see as “enlightened” enough by their peers?

I tried to write on this subject (the demise of men’s wrestling) too, and it was squashed. I covered a 4-time state champ whose only scholarship (not full rides either) were at small D-III schools in Ohio (I’m in Florida).

My blog posting also takes exception at some other aspects not mentioned here, like their “poll” on female participation, polling tricks and trends that were omitted because it didn’t fit the thesis. But overall, this is a spot-on blog posting on the topic. Great work.

The @USAWrestling Twitter feed raised something that the NYT should consider down the road — when female wrestlers such as Patricia Miranda wrestle with men’s teams, they’re considered “male” athletes.

Eric — My guess is that whatever the other Eric said just didn’t fit with the story. As I’ve said before, with all due respect, I don’t think the CSC responds well to the issues. The statements on the blog today about the NYT piece don’t really address any of the issues it raises. And I don’t think the NYT piece was written to silence “credible critics” — it demonstrates, without any rhetoric, that the law has become quite convoluted. The fact that athletic directors are being forced to grab people around campus just to fill roster spots speaks far more clearly to the issue.

That said, it’s worth emphasizing that the NYT says this is the **first** of several stories on the topic. Let’s see how this continues.

Bottom line: the exclusion of Pearson appears, at least to us, to be purposeful, and not simply an oversight.